Broken By Design: How India's Competitive Exams Have Failed The Students

Picture this: another morning, another notification. SSC-CGL examination, the entrance exam for prestigious central government jobs like Income Tax Officer, Assistant Section Officer, Inspector, Sub-Inspector, and other Grade C and Grade D posts under various ministries — postponed.

What should have been a simple calendar adjustment has become the latest casualty in India's sprawling competitive exam ecosystem, a system that was supposed to be the gateway to opportunity but has instead become a monument to broken promises.

The postponement emerged from the wreckage of the computer-based Selection Post Phase 13 examination, conducted between July 24 and August 1 across 194 centres nationwide. What should have been a routine test for 11.5 lakh applicants became a cautionary tale when over 5.5 lakh candidates encountered systematic breakdown firsthand.

The revised model introduced for the first time, Aadhaar-based authentication for both candidates and examination staff, ostensibly to enhance security and streamline operations. Instead, it delivered a devastating cocktail of abrupt cancellations, biometric verification failures, and logistical chaos that left candidates stranded and examination schedules in ruins.

The culprit this time? A collision between ambitious technological upgrades and operational reality. For over a decade, Tata Consultancy Services had been the reliable backbone for the Staff Selection Commission's flagship exams.

But this year brought change.

Enter Eduquity, the new tech partner. Within weeks, reality hit hard. System glitches materialised like clockwork. Question uploads failed spectacularly. Centre allocations descended into chaos. The inevitable conclusion? Push everything down the road and hope for better luck next time.

The scale of the breakdown became clear through detailed post-exam analysis. The SSC's examination of logs from all shifts revealed a staggering reality: about 55,000 candidates had "gaps in data" and deserved "the benefit of doubt."

This bureaucratic language masked a fundamental truth. The system had failed so comprehensively that tens of thousands of candidates' exam records were compromised or incomplete.

The human cost of this institutional breakdown manifested swiftly and predictably. Protests erupted at Jantar Mantar and the CGO Complex, with candidates demanding accountability and a complete vendor reassessment.

But beyond the visible demonstrations lay deeper devastation.

For thousands of aspirants, this wasn't merely bureaucratic reshuffling — travel plans crumbled, rented accommodation had to be extended at painful cost, and carefully orchestrated preparation timelines collapsed into administrative limbo.

The supreme irony? This chaos was entirely preventable, its causes documented, its perpetrators known.

The Epidemic Spreads

The SSC-CGL saga isn't an isolated failure – it's part of a sprawling epidemic of institutional breakdown that has infected India's entire examination system. Consider the carnage of 2024 alone.

NEET-UG 2024 was compromised before students even entered exam halls. Paper leak allegations surfaced early, with some candidates posting impossible scores that defied statistical probability.

Investigators discovered gaping holes in the transport chain. Exam papers moved under contracted drivers with minimal real-time monitoring, creating perfect conditions for corruption.

With papers destined for 4,750 centres nationwide, the vulnerabilities lay precisely where you'd expect: with contracted staff and service providers operating beyond direct oversight.

A third-party audit delivered devastating findings. Of 399 centres examined, 186 lacked the mandated two CCTV cameras per room. Another 83 centres used incorrect biometric staff. Basic compliance had evaporated across the system.

NEET-PG offered its own masterclass in chaos. Critical postponements arrived with just 12 hours' notice before scheduled starts, demolishing months of postgraduate planning. The 2024 exam endured three postponements — June 15 became July, then August 3 — embodying India's "single-shot" nightmare where missing one exam costs an entire year.

Similarly, UGC-NET pushed the boundaries of administrative absurdity. The Ministry of Education cancelled the exam after it had already been conducted, citing compromised integrity based on cybercrime intelligence pointing to dark web sales at ₹5,000-10,000 per paper.

Months of candidate effort vanished with a single announcement, leaving promises of re-examination dangling indefinitely. CSIR-NET followed similar patterns, with rackets deploying remote access software for systematic malpractice.

State-Level Carnage

The infection has metastasised throughout India's examination ecosystem, with state-level disasters matching national-level incompetence for sheer scale and impact.

Gujarat's junior clerk recruitment test collapsed hours before commencement after a major paper leak, affecting 6 lakh candidates. The re-examination took two years to materialise. Rajasthan's Teacher Eligibility Test (REET) became synonymous with technological innovation in cheating. Bluetooth-enabled slippers and concealed microphones became standard equipment for 12.67 lakh affected candidates.

Assam's police sub-inspector recruitment exam crumbled when leaked papers circulated via WhatsApp, derailing plans for over 66,000 candidates. At least the state managed a re-exam within two months. Uttar Pradesh's police constable recruitment drive for 48 lakh aspirants was scrapped mid-process over leak allegations, joining the growing cemetery of abandoned examinations.

The contagion spread further.

Uttarakhand's forester recruitment exams collapsed. Maharashtra's health worker selections fell apart. Telangana's Group-1 Prelim Examination, with 3.8 lakh candidates, was cancelled twice, with waiting periods stretching indefinitely. Re-examinations for accounts officers and assistant engineers in Telangana, affecting 2.5 lakh candidates, remain postponed without clear timelines. Even Haryana's veterinary surgeon recruitment exam succumbed to leak suspicions, with re-examination dates remaining elusive.

Technology as Problem Amplifier

Founded in 2000, it has accumulated a disturbing track record of paper leaks and cheating scandals that reads like a masterclass in systematic institutional failure. In 2020, the Central Directorate General of Training blacklisted the company from conducting examinations, yet it continued securing state-level contracts with the persistence of institutional amnesia.

In 2022, Madhya Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test (MP TET), conducted by Eduquity, descended into predictable cheating chaos, complete with widespread paper leaks that compromised the entire examination process. Madhya Pradesh's response to this debacle? They promptly awarded Eduquity another contract for the 2023 patwari recruitment examinations.

The company's controversial portfolio expanded further with the 2023 Maharashtra MBA CET controversy, adding another state to its growing collection of examination disasters. Most remarkably, despite being blacklisted, it continued to maintain connections with the National Testing Agency and has somehow secured the SSC-CGL contract – transforming a pattern of institutional vandalism into a rewarding career trajectory.

SSC Chairman S Gopalkrishnan, in an interview with The Lallantop, defended the transition from TCS to Eduquity by citing Supreme Court directions in the 2018 Shantanu Kumar case, which mandated separation between content determination and examination conduct.

"The current mode essentially fragments responsibilities across three vendors: Content Authoring Agency for paper creation, Software Supply vendors, and Conducting Agency – with Eduquity handling only the latter" the Chairman said.

This compartmentalisation theoretically was supposed to prevent the comprehensive control that enabled previous remote login breaches and question leaks, since content remains unavailable until 9 AM on exam day through direct server uploads.

However, the Chairman's technical optimism collides brutally with ground reality. An SSC aspirant, speaking anonymously to Swarajya, described the recent examination disaster.

"I arrived two hours early for a 1:30 PM exam with a 12:30 PM entry. We all faced hour-long delays before biometric systems failed entirely. Different candidates began examinations at staggered times as systems collapsed sequentially. Biometric failures persisted through exam conclusion, while computer systems crashed repeatedly. Part-time, undertrained staff offered reassurances like "it will open" as candidates' systems shut down three times during testing".

Another candidate painted an equally grim picture of infrastructural neglect.

"The examination venue resembled a derelict facility, equipped with substandard furniture and computing hardware that appeared procured through rock-bottom bidding. My mouse suffered from severe lag, apparently caused by server connectivity issues that rendered basic navigation nearly impossible. After enduring nearly an hour of technical failures, we received abrupt announcements of exam cancellation, delivered without explanation or proper communication protocols".

The human cost became immediately visible: candidates broke down in tears, their months of preparation reduced to administrative chaos. The decision to fragment components — separating Content Agencies, Software Vendors, and Conductors — aimed to prevent monopolisation but created accountability gaps and coordination failures.

The root cause of this systemic breakdown traces directly to procurement decisions that treat competitive examinations like commodity purchases.

EduQuest's contract victory exemplifies the "lowest bid syndrome" corrupting India's vendor selection process.

The company's ₹171 per candidate quote decisively undercut TCS's ₹311, despite TCS maintaining superior technical evaluation credentials and a decade-long track record of reliable service. This price-driven selection, prioritising immediate cost savings over proven reliability, encapsulates India's procurement mentality that has repeatedly chosen the cheapest options over competent vendors.

Legislative Theatre

Rather than addressing these fundamental procurement flaws, the government unveiled the Public Examination Act, 2024.

The legislation was designed to criminalise paper leaks, impersonation, and fraudulent practices with up to 10 years imprisonment and fines reaching ₹1 crore. Service providers would face accountability. On paper, it represented the enforcement backbone India's examination system desperately needed.

Reality has proven more stubborn than legislation. The Act can punish after disasters occur, but it cannot prevent system failures from happening in the first place. Critics have identified critical gaps that undermine its potential effectiveness as a comprehensive solution to India's examination crisis.

The most glaring omission concerns examination rescheduling. When competitive examinations are cancelled due to alleged malpractices, an increasingly common occurrence, the Public Examination Act provides no mandated timeline for rescheduling.

Without such provisions, candidates face prolonged uncertainty, with months or years of preparation hanging in limbo whilst authorities operate without accountability for delays.

Section 12's investigation framework reveals another structural weakness. The Act mandates inquiry and investigation into unfair means by officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police.

With more than 70 documented cases of examination malpractice in the past 7 years, these instances have evolved into complex issues requiring case-by-case solutions.

This reality reflects the urgent need for a versatile and competent regulatory authority, a specialised committee capable of investigating issues within compressed timeframes and providing effective solutions rather than relying on general police machinery ill-equipped for examination-specific investigations.

The Act's enforcement provisions, whilst severe on paper, cannot address the systemic infrastructure problems that enable repeated failures. Vendor transitions continue without adequate stress testing. Physical transport remains vulnerable to exploitation. Cybersecurity defences remain penetrable. Communication between authorities and candidates operates through last-minute notifications that devastate months of preparation.

Global Contrasts Illuminate India's Failures

International examination systems offer stark contrasts to India's recurring disasters, revealing differences not just in technology or scale, but in fundamental philosophy — a commitment to predictability, transparency, and candidate welfare.

Whilst India processes the largest volume of competitive examination candidates globally, it simultaneously maintains the worst security record among major testing nations.

The data exposes India as a catastrophic outlier in examination security.

Despite processing nearly four times China's examination volume, India has suffered over 70 confirmed major leaks in the past decade whilst China maintains zero documented incidents.

But this isn't merely a question of scale. Singapore, France, and the United States collectively demonstrate that secure examination systems are entirely achievable regardless of testing volume.

India's 14% state-affected rate means that in any given examination cycle, roughly one in seven states experiences some form of security breach, leak, or systematic failure. This represents not isolated incidents but endemic institutional breakdown. The 70+ confirmed leaks likely underestimate true failure rates, as many incidents remain undetected or unreported, particularly at state and local levels.

The contrast with France proves particularly instructive: managing 753,000 annual candidates with only two leak incidents over a decade translates to a 0.03% failure rate. India's rate exceeds this by several orders of magnitude.

American systems serving 130,000 MCAT and USMLE candidates maintain perfect security records, as do Singapore's combined examination systems serving over 60,000 students annually.

China's Gaokao manages 13.4 million students annually with zero documented major leak incidents between 2019 and 2024. This achievement flows from military-grade security investments and vendor stability maintained for over 50 years.

India's NEET, by contrast, has endured over 15 major incidents during the same period, with vendor changes every 2-3 years. The Gaokao's approach to violations is uncompromising: criminal prosecution and lifetime bans. India only recently introduced the Public Examination Act, previously relying on administrative measures.

South Korea's Suneung takes national commitment to examinations to an almost theatrical level. On exam day, the entire country essentially shuts down: flights are rescheduled, the stock market opens late, and police escorts rush students to examination centres. This reveals a national consensus on the sanctity of the examination process.

With 500,000-plus students taking the College Scholastic Ability Test annually, South Korea has maintained virtually zero major leaks since 2000, thanks to military-level coordination between police, hospitals, transport authorities, and advanced biometric verification systems powered by AI.

This stands in stark contrast to India's transportation vulnerabilities, where most insiders assert that whilst the National Testing Agency recruits private agencies through elaborate filtering processes, using firms already empanelled by institutions like the RBI, critical gaps emerge in affiliated service providers these agencies hire.

The driver carrying examination papers may be approved, but his assistant or loader can be compromised. In 2024, papers had to be transported to 4,750 centres through such potentially vulnerable chains.

France's Baccalauréat serves 753,000 students annually with only two leak incidents since 2011. The French system maintains stability through Ministry-controlled vendor networks operating for over a decade. India's lowest-bid mentality produces the destabilising vendor changes that crippled SSC-CGL.

France secures its examination system through €50 million in annual investment and robust penalties (€9,000 fines, three years imprisonment), whilst in India, the National Testing Agency's ₹3,064.77 crore examination budget inadequately addresses security concerns alongside historically weak enforcement mechanisms.

Similarly, the American MCAT and USMLE model demonstrates systematic excellence. The MCAT serves 85,000 students annually, the USMLE 45,000. Both offer 30+ annual sessions with year-round availability, allowing candidate scheduling flexibility and 48-hour rescheduling options.

These medical examinations operate within the broader American standardised testing ecosystem encompassing SAT, ACT, and GRE. It serves nearly four million college and university-bound students annually through computer-based tests held multiple times throughout the year.

The SAT alone can be taken seven times annually, offering unprecedented flexibility by spreading risk over extended periods rather than concentrating it on single catastrophic events. The GRE also exemplifies comprehensive flexibility – standardised testing offered year-round at centres and homes under proctored conditions, with comparable scores regardless of date and candidate control over score reporting to institutions.

Contrast this with NEET's rigid single-day national model, where individual glitches can derail millions.

These examinations prioritise critical thinking over rote memorisation, which is the exact opposite of India's coaching-centre-driven system that rewards excessive practice of predetermined patterns.

Similar commitment to reliability and substance characterises the European Union Staff Selection model, which operates with clockwork precision. Exam dates are published a full year in advance and are never shifted except for war or natural disasters. Digital delivery undergoes extensive multi-vendor testing before implementation. Candidates choose from continental centre networks. This contrasts starkly with SSC-CGL's vendor switch disasters.

International models prove that vendor stability, substantial security investment, and zero-tolerance approaches to systemic failure are foundational requirements, not optional enhancements. Academic experts advocate modern techniques, including 'any time and any centre' computer-based testing with ML-driven biometric verification and ethical hacker deployment.

This advocacy for "flexible and less stressful exam systems like the SAT found recognition in the 2018 decision to hold NEET twice annually, a reform later shelved despite its obvious potential to reduce the single-day pressure that defines India's examination nightmare.

The irony cuts deep: experts consistently recommend adopting the American model's flexibility – multiple test dates throughout the year that reduce stress by distributing risk rather than concentrating it on isolated events – yet policymakers retreat from implementing such obvious improvements.

The Financial Burden: A Cross-National Catastrophe

The disparity between examination preparation costs and outcomes becomes even more disturbing when viewed through an international lens.

The financial burden on Indian families reveals not just an expensive system, but an economically devastating one that consumes disproportionate household resources whilst delivering unreliable results.

The data reveals India's examination system as uniquely punishing to family finances. Indian families spend 5-8 times their annual per capita income on competitive examination preparation, a burden ratio that dwarfs international comparisons.

American families, despite higher absolute spending, allocate merely 0.1-0.2 times their per capita income to test preparation. South Korean families, operating within the world's most examination-intensive culture, still spend only 0.12 times their per capita income annually.

This economic disparity creates a vicious cycle where massive preparation investments encounter system failures that destroy months or years of financial commitment. When SSC-CGL postponements or NEET cancellations occur, they don't just disrupt academic timelines – they obliterate family savings invested in coaching, accommodation, and repeated preparation cycles.

The ₹8-12 lakh coaching industry thrives precisely because families feel compelled to spend unprecedented percentages of household income to compete in unreliable examination systems.

Chinese families allocate 7.9% of total household expenditures to examination preparation, which is significantly higher than the 1-2% typical in developed nations, but still manageable within broader family budgets.

India's financial burden extends beyond percentage allocations to represent multiple years of family income concentrated on single examination outcomes that increasingly face cancellation or compromise.

Predictable Failures, Preventable Disasters

Vendor transitions proceed without adequate trials. Logistics pipelines remain vulnerable to exploitation. Cyber defences prove inadequate against determined attacks. Scheduling operates with such rigidity that any disruption triggers national crisis.

State-level legislation in Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, and Rajasthan has increased punishments without deterring repeat offences, confirming that legal frameworks alone cannot address systematic dysfunction.

International models prove that none of this breakdown is inevitable. Examinations can be frequent, flexible, and secure simultaneously. They can prioritise candidates without sacrificing integrity. They can survive technical glitches without collapsing into postponements and cancellations.

Achievement requires acknowledging uncomfortable truth: India's current system, for all its scale and ambition, is brittle by design. Until this admission occurs, the next SSC-CGL postponement or NEET paper leak won't represent an aberration. It will simply be the next date circled in red on an already crowded calendar of predictable failures.

The pattern has become inescapable. The solutions exist, proven by international experience and codified in existing Indian legislation. What remains missing is the political will to implement comprehensive reform rather than continuing to manage perpetual crisis.

Until that changes, India's examination system will continue failing both the candidates who depend on it and the meritocracy it was designed to serve.